Ron Paul’s racist newsletters

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul wants us to believe that he had nothing to do with the incendiary newsletters of the late ’80s and early ’90s that bore his name.

He wants us to believe that he didn’t write or even read these monthly publications that bore the masthead “Ron Paul Political Report” alongside a mugshot of him.

But if that’s true, it doesn’t say much for Dr. Paul’s intelligence. What other politician doesn’t even read the stuff that’s circulated under his or her name?

From THIS COLLECTION of quotes from Paul’s newsletters, we have these examples:

The January 1995 issue of the Survival Report—released just three months before the Oklahoma City bombing—cites an anti-government militia’s advice to other militias, including, “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

The October 1992 issue of the Political Report paraphrases an “ex-cop” who offers this strategy for protecting against “urban youth”:“If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).”

A direct-mail solicitation for Ron Paul’s political and investment newsletters two decades ago warned of a “coming race war in our big cities” and of a “federal-homosexual cover-up” to play down the impact of AIDS.

The eight-page letter, which appears to carry Paul’s signature at the end, also warns that the U.S. government’s redesign of currency to include different colors – a move aimed at thwarting counterfeiters – actually was part of a plot to allow the government to track Americans using the “new money.”

Pat Cunningham’s commentary is as relevant to the upcoming elections as that will rogers quote is to anyone under 40.

archaic hack, retire already…do you really think we need someone to just sit here and repeat the same ancient smear tactics cnn , msnbc, fox news. abc , nbc, and cbs have been using for decades? either learn what you are talking about or shut up already.

This is old news to those of us who remember when these issues were raised, at least in some quarters, during past political incarnations of Presidential-candidate Ron Paul.

What is new is the hypocrisy.

If Ron Paul is a racist, then what of Newt Gingrich, who said and insisted that Palestinians were an “invented” people? Gingrich’s defended himself saying: “Is what I said factually correct? Yes. Is it historically true? Yes.” And not a word of outrage came from anyone outside of representatives of the Palestinian people.

So, if some other presidential candidate were to state that Israelis were an “invented people” and defended that assertion on historical and factual grounds, would there be a similar lack of outrage?

Gingrich went much further into racism by saying of these invented individuals: “These people are terrorists.” And again he got away with it.

Supposing this same other presidential candidate were to say that Israelis are terrorists and cite, as Newt did, their history of ethnic cleansing and terrorist attacks against Palestinian people, past and present, including especially the ongoing “price tag” attacks that have included vandalism of Palestinian property, violent attacks carried out against random Palestinian civilians, burning of mosques and fields, stone throwing, uprooting trees, and making incursions into Palestinian villages and land: would he get away with it?

Racism is disgusting no matter who promotes it and on whose behalf it is presented.

Until the corporate press in this country figures that much out, it will remain worthy nothing but contempt.

“I’ll bet you are in need of a RELIGIOUS CHRISTIAN HUG; owwwwwwwwwww that may burn your satanic flesh.” says Karl.

When I went to church as a a child there was none of the looney, mean-sptrited, right-wing raving, sex-obssessed crap that passes for some strange, exclusively American version of Christianity. If I go to church tomorrow, it still won’t be there because they haven’t been hijacked by the right yet.
Some Christians really do favors for their religion says Frank Scaheffer, an evangelical defector.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/christopher-hitchens-and-_1_b_1155307.html

“What other politician doesn’t even read the stuff that’s circulated under his or her name?”

so rather than have evidence to smear, you raise the controversial issue in the title of your post but fail to substantiate anything.

if in 1992 he suggested militia’s take more direct action, thank God, and if he gave advice in 1995 off the cuff to an urban youth fighting cops, i really don’t see anything wrong with that advice.

Liberals progressives need to admit you have nothing ad hominem to say against paul, that you hate his views, and his destruction of social services that are fundamental to living in a civilized and industrialized country, but hes DONE nothing “wrong” in the past to make him unelectable. this looks like a sloppy attempt at a smear.

steven wright says he sees nothing wrong with Ron Paul’s “advice in 1995 off the cuff to an urban youth fighting cops [sic].”

There are several things wrong with steven’s statement:

For starters, Dr. Paul denies having written or even read the controversial stuff that appeared in his newsletter.

For another thing, the passage to which steven refers is not advice to “urban youth fighting cops.” Rather, it’s advice to cops fighting urban youth. And it advocates what amounts to murder and concealment of it.

The advice is: “If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).”

i’m glad you feel its your responsibility to include me as somebody who strikes you as a dangerous person. if you knew the power of the internet, you wouldn’t carelessly or reckessly throw those kind of accusations around.

You had an article as “ron paul is racist” you have 4 peices of evidence unrelated to racism, siting paul as not having read his newsletters because of 4 provocational statements that were made without notice of paul.

You still have yet to verifiy the “ron paul is a racist, because of this newsletter” argument. I don’t care about the “ron paul obviously hasnt read every peice of newsletter he’s written” argument, thats ok. The burden of proof is in direct relation to the title of the article you wished for.